P. Clysdale-Cornell

Dawn Gustafson applied for a Recognizance to Keep the Peace order against her brother, Grant Gustafson, under section 810 of the Criminal Code, following an incident involving verbal altercations and a dispute over parental finances.

The court, applying a civil standard of proof, found that the applicant did not have reasonable grounds for fear, as her actions during and after the incident contradicted her testimony of fear, and the respondent's conduct did not involve physical threats or property damage.

The application was dismissed.

The defendant, Cementation Canada Inc., brought a motion alleging breaches of its constitutional rights under sections 11(a) and 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The motion sought a judicial stay of three charges laid under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, arguing insufficient particulars for two counts and incomplete disclosure of several documents, including a "Director's Memo." The court dismissed the motion, finding that the charges provided sufficient particulars by referencing specific regulatory sections and that the requested disclosure items were either provided, unavailable, or not relevant to raising a reasonable doubt, particularly upholding solicitor-client privilege for the "Director's Memo." The application for costs was also denied.

The defendant was charged with two offences under the Forest Fires Prevention Act: failing to tend, control, and extinguish an outdoor fire before leaving the site, and starting an outdoor fire without a permit.

The fire occurred on May 10, 2017, on the defendant's property and expanded to approximately 0.1 hectares.

The defendant denied starting the fire and claimed someone else was responsible.

The court found that all elements of both offences were proven beyond a reasonable doubt, including that the defendant was responsible for the fire, and convicted on both counts.

The defendant was charged with 46 counts under the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act.

He brought a Charter application challenging the validity of a search warrant executed on his residence, arguing that the search violated his s. 8 rights against unreasonable search and seizure.

The defendant contended that the Information to Obtain lacked sufficient evidence that his residence was also his place of business, and that the search was therefore a fishing expedition.

The Crown argued that the Information to Obtain, reviewed holistically, contained sufficient credible and reliable evidence to support issuance of the warrant.

The court found that while the defendant's s. 8 Charter rights were violated due to insufficient evidence linking the residence to the business location, the evidence should not be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter, as the violation was minimal, the state did not act in bad faith, and society's interest in adjudication on the merits was strong.

The defendant was charged with failing to surrender evidence of insurance for an off-road vehicle within seventy-two hours of a peace officer's request, contrary to section 15(4) of the Off-Road Vehicle Act.

The defendant claimed he was an occupier of Crown land under a 21-day free use permit and therefore exempt from the requirement.

He also raised Charter issues regarding unlawful detention, breach of the right to remain silent, and unlawful search.

The court found that the defendant was not a legal occupier of the Crown land, that his arrest was lawful, and that while a search of his saddle-bag breached his Charter rights, no evidence was seized.

The court found the defendant guilty of the included offence under section 15(3) of the Off-Road Vehicle Act as the element of ownership could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.